From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF0B1F4B4 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726102AbgIPCJR (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:09:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58820 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726039AbgIPCJP (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:09:15 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40345C06174A for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id w16so6614927qkj.7 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1LGc3l1cEvh2LPKc/Piy35x7V0rg0vXhM+E+F+cXOAo=; b=Go4KxI9CvlyFbwRBxIJthWzOfGHNKo/u9Zia2fl8N+OVozr4eUPe80h9bwNKnHVhZJ H6udYbjdJGSIrf4L2FpfWBaerrwABoLz3p3bEzkIFJs9XrsGTdDRY5/aEAnEzPnqr738 Y4n0bfl1fnfhXOOoKpbTNfF2pRRpXOm7dhtt5c7tCvhRUtUuM8z7aSSjNT/FpFQWrpdT pTIZbpE/XjlPhRZvKiYr9tAT7DXdPKhXTWSmuxfkaXQ7B2fi2NW/TUA1m2SNuml4MpUn chV4/Q28+/HZ/iZT3XNxt3hl1VPVNZKE9hqaDgKj2PBvlZ1Rn4r9uP+UkUW716f1qS/a nazQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1LGc3l1cEvh2LPKc/Piy35x7V0rg0vXhM+E+F+cXOAo=; b=q7ojnuoq7ndTiaLP/fOot9mZJnGgkC05A1v9riuui4rzsmeN0n1UmRqpFh/K1213DX KUhqo1EIXNhPdlAZdH5PDh0JtUGXh/aNyWM6eWcM5J9M33K4ybBK/6suMB+YTv8K+pw3 xMtMzE9C+26WLMSJHk41W4R3YzbHUpRIIFYO1MU4BW0hCtT8IiRXyxcLtB9twFvM2Gd+ WOAU37w2gmy7PsB808S5ofNcp6sJoxHKSaVE/JW8gmKSDNllwUUrarmEde+ne8rMb6kM Ii+boXmPkVpgrgX0J5KnzHc4rAHUNg2EdMigS8o2L+IFchj9XlGzs9A7u7fs8EmoX2Yz GMmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eEDZi4J7INhK2S9+I4hGSCopqFtgqap2UjGdZEnqZacZO5/9S /XPWCbJ1FVG30Mg7NIdYiCX9D/1gfmJbLvTv X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxd19qoGSeVlIhkksGRatTsxUZ+aPBxDv5dWXxC/TRomadQUAb+xppXWgN/KJ1BHgzZo+XUYw== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:eb57:: with SMTP id b84mr21128529qkg.450.1600222153074; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-98-229-3-81.hsd1.vt.comcast.net. [98.229.3.81]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k52sm19380373qtc.56.2020.09.15.19.09.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:09:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Aaron Lipman To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Aaron Lipman , Eric Sunshine , Junio C Hamano Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] git branch: allow combining merged and no-merged filters Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:08:37 -0400 Message-Id: <20200916020840.84892-1-alipman88@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.24.3 (Apple Git-128) In-Reply-To: <20200913193140.66906-1-alipman88@gmail.com> References: <20200913193140.66906-1-alipman88@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Thanks for the review, Eric & Junio. Eric - > I didn't examine it too closely, so this may be a silly question, but > is there a reason to start from scratch (by deleting all the branches) > rather than simply using or extending the existing branches like the > other tests do? I went back and forth on this. There were a couple reasons I leaned towards starting fresh - I found branch names like feature_a & feature_b more illustrative, and I didn't want readers to have to scroll up further to find where branches came from. But, with the tests re-ordered so "branch --merged with --verbose" comes last (which adds new branches that might otherwise clutter up the output of my new tests), I'm happy with using the existing test setup - rewritten accordingly. > It's a bit concerning to see output from porcelain git-branch being > fed to 'grep' and 'xargs'. More typically, you would instead rely upon > the (stable) output of a plumbing command... Thanks, useful knowledge for future contributions. > We normally avoid repeating in the commit message what the patch > itself already says. The first paragraph alone (without the example > text) would be plenty sufficient. (Not itself worth a re-roll, > though.) Got it, removed. > Missing sign-off. Whoops, fixed. > This is repeated nearly verbatim in the other two documentation pages. > It makes one wonder if it can be generalized and placed in its own > file which is included in the other documents via > `include::contains.txt[]`. Perhaps like this: > > When combining multiple `--contains` and `--no-contains` filters, > `git branch` shows references containing at least one of the named > `--contains` commits and none of the named `--no-contains` > commits. > > But perhaps that's too generic? Cool, I hadn't realized we could embed snippets like that. Slightly generic, but I have no strong opinion either way. Going with the passive wording provided by Junio. (Looking at AsciiDoc's documentation, I think we could also set a :command-name: variable to insert some dynamic content into an include:: file.) > This sort of implementation detail is readily discoverable by reading > the patch itself, and since there is no complexity about it which > requires extensive explanation, we'd normally leave it out of the > commit message. Removed. > This revised test doesn't seem to have all that much value since this > combination is checked by new tests added elsewhere by the patch. Agreed, dropped. > Would it make sense to also test multiple --merged and multiple > --no-merged? (Genuine question, not a demand to add more tests.) I don't see a reason to. The --merged and --no-merged filters are applied in separate passes, so I feel it's sufficient to test them independently. (When doing my own QA testing, I did combine multiple merged & multiple no-merged, multiple contains & multiple no-contains, merged/no-merged & contains/no-contains, etc.) On the other hand, extra test cases could help prevent regressions should someone significantly refactor ref-filter.c. If anyone has a preference to add more tests, I'm happy to oblige. > I think you forgot s/incompatible/compatible/ in the test title (which > you changed in the other cases). Thanks, fixed. Junio - > I do not mind making the 0/1 a symbolic constant between > do_merge_filter() and filter_refs() for enhanced readability, > though. If I understand the convention, the constant names should be prefixed with DO_MERGE_FILTER. I suggest DO_MERGE_FILTER_REACHABLE and DO_MERGE_FILTER_UNREACHABLE. Happy to re-roll if others have a different preference - or feel free to edit.) Aaron Lipman (3): t3201: test multiple branch filter combinations Doc: cover multiple contains/no-contains filters ref-filter: allow merged and no-merged filters Documentation/filters.txt | 7 +++ Documentation/git-branch.txt | 10 ++-- Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 13 ++++-- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 11 +++-- builtin/branch.c | 6 +-- builtin/for-each-ref.c | 2 +- builtin/tag.c | 8 ++-- ref-filter.c | 64 ++++++++++++++------------ ref-filter.h | 12 ++--- t/t3200-branch.sh | 4 -- t/t3201-branch-contains.sh | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----- t/t6302-for-each-ref-filter.sh | 4 +- t/t7004-tag.sh | 4 +- 13 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/filters.txt -- 2.24.3 (Apple Git-128)